|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Christian ethics vs Secular Humanist ethics
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
What are the differences between Christian ethics and Secular Humanist ethics?
I'm not interested in beliefs here, I'm interested in the practical outworking of those beliefs.
And while I realise both those terms are loaded with ambiguity ( Christians and Secular Humanists will likely disagree on what each are), I wonder if there any obvious standouts with practical implications.
By practical I mean how we live our lives and the decisions we make and what we DO and how we behave towards other people.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
I'm not sure there are any practical differences. Both rely on building up ethics on a substrate of a belief in the value of individuals.
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
For most practical purposes the differences within Christian and humanist positions will outweigh the differences between them.
I think one difference in general is that secular humanism tends to base the value of human beings in characteristics that most belong to young able-bodied adults: autonomy, reason, self-determination. Christian ethics, all things being equal, will tend against seeing those traits as determining human value.
A Christian is more likely to regard abortion as problematic even though there is no explicitly non-secular reason to do so.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Part of the reason for there being a Renaissance was the rediscovery of the writings of the pre-Christian Greeks and Romans, which were found to contain ethical statements that made just as much sense, or more, as anything the Christians could come up with. We still refer back to many of those much-earlier writers, partly because their writings were not enveloped in a fog of "church-speak".
Ethics allow for society to function, just as much as ethics allow individuals to function There is no exact-one-way to be ethical, but there is common ground to all statements, if they are going to work among all people.
Secular humanists have to work with the ideas that there are many, very different, people in the world, and that a common ground has to be found. Christians aren't much good at finding common ground with "others" Rather, "others" are all too often seen as dangerous, or as subjects for evangelisation, or as objects in the background, rather than just being people.
Indeed, the statement about "Christian" ethics and "secular" ethics implies some sort of separation, as if Christian ethics were some other entity than the secular ones.
It would be more helpful to find where those ethics differ, and analyse the reason why, than to trumpet that "Ours" are better than "yours" on the basis of a book that you may not even have read (and may not care to).
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, I was wondering if there are any differences, especially as quite a lot of Christians are secularists, and Christian humanism is very long-standing.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
Secular Humanists don't stand outside abortion clinics protesting.
That was both flippant and serious. It's hard to tell some secular humanist ethics from liberal Christian ethics and hard to tell other secularist humanist ethics from Middle of the road CofE ethics. Arguably you can barely tell Randians (who are atheists if not secular humanists) from prosperity-gospel loving Christians.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IconiumBound
Shipmate
# 754
|
Posted
Both secular humanists and religious (more than just Christian) humanists share closely related beliefs on the treatment of others. The difference between the two is that humanists have only their personal conscience to keep their conduct whole; religious humanists rely on a rewards and punishment (heaven or hell) dictum to keep their conduct in line.
Posts: 1318 | From: Philadelphia, PA, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
I see the difference as being one of limits. We all have limits to our ability to love and forgive. But Christianity holds out the possibility of being enabled by grace to achieve scandalously gratuitous levels of love and mercy.
The practical consequence of this is that a follower of Jesus doesn't have to be afraid of feeling foolish if her capacity to love and forgive is "taken advantage of".
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I see the difference as being one of limits. We all have limits to our ability to love and forgive. But Christianity holds out the possibility of being enabled by grace to achieve scandalously gratuitous levels of love and mercy.
The practical consequence of this is that a follower of Jesus doesn't have to be afraid of feeling foolish if her capacity to love and forgive is "taken advantage of".
Do you find this to be true in practical terms? I mean, do you find that atheists or humanists are less loving or merciful? I've not observed that myself, but this is anecdotal.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
What are the differences between Christian ethics and Secular Humanist ethics?
Christian ethics are what I try to live by. Secular Humanist ethics are what I think everyone should live by.
In practical terms three main differences would be:
Grace, forgiveness and heaven: Christian ethics say forgive as I want to be forgiven. That's a non-negotiable. I hope to share heaven with everyone who I have ever hurt or who has hurt me. My relationship with my enemies has to look forward to a future reconciliation with them, in this life and beyond the grave. Secular ethics are concerned for right relationships in this world alone.
Sins of thought: all sorts of wrong thinking is bad in Christian ethics - envy, resentment, despair, covetousness, lust ... not merely because it might influence behaviour but because I'm trying to be the sort of person who doesn't think like that. Secular ethics should reserve a private space inside other people's heads where they can think what the hell they like.
Sexual ethics: The principles are the same - commitment, consent, respect - but Christian ethics have a structure in which marriage, even an unhappy marriage, is qualitatively different from the most loving and commited cohabitation. Christian ethics can forbid fornication and adultery even in circumstances where secular ethics would see good grounds for making an exception.
Probably lots more, but that's enough to show what I think the difference is.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Of course the two are similar. Secular humanism retains the ethics of liberal Christianity while jettisoning. Also, not all atheists are pro choice. They usually use the argument that the fetus is a potential human and should be protected. In other words, pro life atheists use an argument similar to one of the arguments used by Roman Catholics.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
My impression is that Christian ethics is usually opposed to consequentialism (such as utilitarianism). For example, in a recent post, mrWaters says of something, it would make perfect sense to me if I was a censequentialist ("the ends justify the means"). I don't believe that one that considers himself a christian can accept such a position.
This seems consistent with a lot I have read on SoF whereas a lot of secular ethics is, often explicitly, seeking the greatest good/utility/happiness (or least misery) for as many as possible.
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
My impression is that Christian ethics is usually opposed to consequentialism (such as utilitarianism). For example, in a recent post, mrWaters says of something, it would make perfect sense to me if I was a censequentialist ("the ends justify the means"). I don't believe that one that considers himself a christian can accept such a position.
This seems consistent with a lot I have read on SoF whereas a lot of secular ethics is, often explicitly, seeking the greatest good/utility/happiness (or least misery) for as many as possible.
I just wonder if the average Christian on the Clapham omnibus actually ponders such things. Isn't it likely that s/he uses the morality of the age, or as it is christened, the Zeitgeist - and that might involve consequentialism? Although I'm not sure how one would set about assessing such things. I suppose you would have to commission a poll - what fun, eh?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I just wonder if the average Christian on the Clapham omnibus actually ponders such things.
Secular ethics may be that of the atheist on the Clapham omnibus* since there is no authoritative voice for them to turn to, but Christian ethics is, I assume, reinforced by whatever Christian authority/community one turns to.
* I've never been to Clapham - is it worth the bus ride? I assume the bus itself would be packed with every opinion pollster who can fit on.
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I just wonder if the average Christian on the Clapham omnibus actually ponders such things.
Secular ethics may be that of the atheist on the Clapham omnibus* since there is no authoritative voice for them to turn to, but Christian ethics is, I assume, reinforced by whatever Christian authority/community one turns to.
* I've never been to Clapham - is it worth the bus ride? I assume the bus itself would be packed with every opinion pollster who can fit on.
Clapham station is an anorak's dream, with many interesting platforms, and destinations being announced all over the place; I'm not sure about the buses.
I just assume that like everyone else, the average Christian uses a rag-bag of bits and bobs of moral positions and ideas. As you say, I expect these are periodically given a good old sousing by the vicar/priest/pastor, but whether or not that actually produces any kind of coherence - I doubt. But then there is a lot to be said for a rag-bag of bits and bobs - let me not have men about me who are consistent!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I just assume that like everyone else, the average Christian uses a rag-bag of bits and bobs of moral positions and ideas.
I may be answering a more meta-ethical question than Evensong intended. To get back to the OP, in an earlier thread there was a lot of discussion about whether some good acts are vitiated by the moral agent doing them for sinful reasons - this seems not an issue for many secularists: if I do good I don't care if it's for a selfish reason because it's the consequence that's important, not the state of my soul.
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
It's hard to tell the difference in the United States in part because a large number of atheists keep a very low profile. I'm not sure there's a huge difference, other than a bias toward liberal rather than conservative attitudes. I think I'm rare in that I went to a 100 year old high school run by secular humanists. So things that you may think of as religious actually don't look too different. For a couple of years I had a once a week ethics class.
Do ignore the salesman who tells you those used Christian ethics are shinier because they were used by a little old lady who only took them out for a drive on Sundays ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
But Christianity holds out the possibility of being enabled by grace to achieve scandalously gratuitous levels of love and mercy.
Love and mercy benefit the recipient - it would seem unfair to them if God withholds his grace from non-Christians who might otherwise do greater good.
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Well, I've met some amazing Buddhists, whose compassion shone like a shining thing. They don't really have 'God' within their domain, but maybe God has them within his.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carex
Shipmate
# 9643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Christian ethics are what I try to live by. Secular Humanist ethics are what I think everyone should live by.
What we expect from others and what we expect from ourselves is an important distinction, but not necessarily along the Christian/Humanist lines.
quote:
In practical terms three main differences would be:
Grace, forgiveness and heaven: ...
Sins of thought: ...
Sexual ethics: ...
Interesting: I wouldn't say that any of those are uniquely Christian ideas, as I've encountered all of them among Secular Humanists, though perhaps for different reasons not associated with the afterlife.
Forgiveness is not uncommon - it is an important component in some types of psychological and/or psychiatric healing. It may be stated as, "don't live in the past: forgive and move on. Live in the here and now."
I can't remember how many times I've heard someone carry on about "negative thoughts" and how they can drain a person's energy, etc. While there may be some differences in the details, the phrase "be real" often includes the idea of discarding fantasies and other unproductive or negative "thought forms" (to use the vernacular).
Sexual ethics is a bit more difficult to judge because I don't keep track of what everyone else is doing and correlate that with their religious affiliation. My impression, however, is that, as Dafyd said earlier, there is more difference among each group than between them. I don't think there is that much difference in the divorce rates between the two groups, for example (it may be higher for Christians in some areas), while promiscuity and adultery are not unique to either group. I know plenty of secular marriages that survive well past the average length these days. I have heard people argue that the partners in a secular marriage make a more conscious decision to get married and to make the marriage work during difficult times rather than relying on a religious justification for why they have to stick together, and therefore may have a happier or more rewarding relationship, but there is so much variation it would be difficult to prove. It seems more productive to me to acknowledge those who work hard to have a committed and fulfilling marriage/relationship regardless of the theological underpinnings or lack thereof.
So in my experience I don't see these constructs as being uniquely Christian, even if they stem from specific Christian teachings.
Posts: 1425 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Good points, Carex - I agree with your point about forgiveness; in some ways, it is a cornerstone of some psychological approaches.
On grace, interestingly, I had a Zen teacher whose teachings on grace were something luminous, and I will never forget them.
I think there is an interplay or overlap today between different ideas, or different fields of ideas, or different modes of thought. So a distinction between Christian ethics and secular ethics may be untenable really. Life is fuzzy around the edges, and in fact, in the middle also.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Part of the reason for there being a Renaissance was the rediscovery of the writings of the pre-Christian Greeks and Romans, which were found to contain ethical statements that made just as much sense, or more, as anything the Christians could come up with. We still refer back to many of those much-earlier writers, partly because their writings were not enveloped in a fog of "church-speak".
I find this comment interesting, because I have recently read and reviewed the just-published Inventing The Individual:The Origins Of Western Liberalism by Larry Siedentop.
His opening chapters question the conventional belief in a Graeco-Roman proto-secularism based on free thinking and rational ethics, which was rediscovered during the Renaissance or Enlightenment.
He claims that the ancient world was bound by a descriptive notion of natural law which involved "natural" inequality, and that an equality of respect for the personhood of each and every man and woman was an unintended product of early and mediaeval Christianity, with its scriptural anthropology and soteriology, and its prescriptive version of natural law.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I mean, do you find that atheists or humanists are less loving or merciful?
Not necessarily, but I do find them more self-righteous.
They are always banging on about their compassion and integrity.
Christians can be self-righteous too, of course, but I think that their assertion of what they believe to be objective and absolute truth and goodness, is often mistakenly confused with an assertion of their own personal transparency and goodness.
Whatever else one might think about the dogmas of God's absolute holiness, and human original sin, they can, and should, and sometimes do, encourage in their holders a self-suspicion and self-awareness.
There are, of course, good and bad Christians and good and bad secular humanists, and all can be "hypocritical" in failing to live up to their professed ideals, but on the whole I do think that Christians are more in touch with reality.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, I've met some amazing Buddhists, whose compassion shone like a shining thing. They don't really have 'God' within their domain, but maybe God has them within his.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) Amen.
(By the way, does anyone actually self-identify as a "secular humanist"? I'm used to that term being one mainly used by certain religious groups to attack people...)
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
(By the way, does anyone actually self-identify as a "secular humanist"? I'm used to that term being one mainly used by certain religious groups to attack people...)
By the way does anyone actually self-identify as a member of the "Religious Right"? I'm used to that term being one used mainly used by certain anti-Christian groups to attack people...
Seriously, while "secular humanist" can be employed as a term of abuse, I think that on the whole it is a useful and accurate way of summing up a widespread worldview.
I have actually heard atheists, in response to being grouped with other atheists such as Stalin and Pol Pot, angrily insist that their atheism is incidental, and that what really characterises them, and distinguishes them from "bad" atheists, is their secular humanism.
[ 15. August 2014, 05:37: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
By the way does anyone actually self-identify as a member of the "Religious Right"? I'm used to that term being one used mainly used by certain anti-Christian groups to attack people...
And by Christian groups!
quote:
Seriously, while "secular humanist" can be employed as a term of abuse, I think that on the whole it is a useful and accurate way of summing up a widespread worldview.
This does make sense, yes, and it does distinguish it from other forms of humanism, such as Petrarch's and the like.
quote:
I have actually heard atheists, in response to being grouped with other atheists such as Stalin and Pol Pot, angrily insist that their atheism is incidental, and that what really characterises them, and distinguishes them from "bad" atheists, is their secular humanism.
Ah, this I did not know. Yes, I would not want to be lumped in with the Inquisitors myself, to take an analogue from Christians in history.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
(does a double-take)
Um... why are people lumping in perfectly nice atheists with Pol Pot and Stalin??
... oh, right, I've encountered people who do things like that.
On behalf of ... myself, I guess, if you're an atheist and have been so lumped in with people like that, many hugs and I'm sorry you were treated that way.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I mean, do you find that atheists or humanists are less loving or merciful?
They are always banging on about their compassion and integrity.
Only, in my experience, when - as has happened regularly in the past - they are assumed to have neither. I'd suggest A N Wilson's "God's Funeral" or almost anything about atheism in the C19 for evidence of the belief that society would collapse into depravity and corruption if people lost their belief in God. You still sometimes see such views in the US.
Look how long it took for atheists to be accepted as MPs in the UK, and even now John Major is, I think, the only PM to have publicly admitted not being religious. Is an atheist likely to be acceptable as a US president? We are still likely to be seen as untrustworthy. Try duckduckgo-ing (or googling) atheists untrustworthy and see what you get. For example in Canada in 2011 we are rated below rapists in trustworthiness*. Interestingly atheists don't seem to judge religious believers negatively.
Of course if the only way to be accepted is to at least pretend to religious belief, many will so pretend. And you can rightly call them hypocrites if you are so inclined. Surely, you think, better to be a pariah than to lie about something which is unimportant to you but important to others.
OK you'll all admit you've met 'good' atheists, maybe some of your best friends are ... but would you want your daughter to marry one.
It's hardly an issue in the UK, though perhaps more serious in some parts of the US and in many other parts of the world.
Pretty much the same sort of arguments have been in the past leveled at people of colour, women, Jews, the poor, immigrants, Catholics (especially excluded from religious tolerance by John Locke). It isn't as bad for us as for those other groups (at least post the Inquisition and Robespierre) but I'm not quite so sure that, "on the whole ... Christians are more in touch with reality" - just your own reality.
* I have no idea how trustworthy the example is. I got a bit cross - sorry. And probably I lack compassion and integrity as much as the next person - whoever and whatever they are.
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
OK you'll all admit you've met 'good' atheists, maybe some of your best friends are ... but would you want your daughter to marry one.
She is one, and she lives with one (not married, but they've been together for ten years, so they might as well be) and yes, we get along very well with both of them, thank you.
quote:
Robespierre
Robespierre?
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I see the difference as being one of limits. We all have limits to our ability to love and forgive. But Christianity holds out the possibility of being enabled by grace to achieve scandalously gratuitous levels of love and mercy.
The practical consequence of this is that a follower of Jesus doesn't have to be afraid of feeling foolish if her capacity to love and forgive is "taken advantage of".
Do you find this to be true in practical terms? I mean, do you find that atheists or humanists are less loving or merciful? I've not observed that myself, but this is anecdotal.
In practical terms, I find those without faith more likely to draw a line on what can be expected of them or anyone else, and base that around human rules - law, company policy, whatever.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
But Christianity holds out the possibility of being enabled by grace to achieve scandalously gratuitous levels of love and mercy.
Love and mercy benefit the recipient - it would seem unfair to them if God withholds his grace from non-Christians who might otherwise do greater good.
You have to accept you're in need of something to seek it out. if you believe you can achieve something by your own power, and therefore refuse to ask for help with it, it can't be described as "unfair" that you do not have help forced upon you.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Robespierre?
Didn't like atheists. Or Roman Catholics. Or anyone other than deists.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
By the way, does anyone actually self-identify as a "secular humanist"? I'm used to that term being one mainly used by certain religious groups to attack people...
Mostly, they identify as humanist. The word 'secular' tends to be added by Christians as a reminder that 'Christian humanism' (and presumably Jewish and Islamic humanism etc etc) is a thing.
Although any term can be used abusively if you're abusive about the people it refers to.
[ 15. August 2014, 14:05: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Robespierre?
Didn't like atheists. Or Roman Catholics. Or anyone other than deists.
Quite. I think he was the first to refer to atheism as an "aristocratic vice" - a phrase one occasionally still hears. A bit of foolish whimsy on my part, but it's a bit much to blame the problems of France on the King's atheism ("Armed in turn with the daggers of fanaticism and the poisons of atheism, kings have always conspired to assassinate humanity." May 7, 1794) and then claim that atheist revolutionaries are therefore 'really' aristocrats.
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I mean, do you find that atheists or humanists are less loving or merciful?
Not necessarily, but I do find them more self-righteous.
They are always banging on about their compassion and integrity.
Christians can be self-righteous too, of course, but I think that their assertion of what they believe to be objective and absolute truth and goodness, is often mistakenly confused with an assertion of their own personal transparency and goodness.
Whatever else one might think about the dogmas of God's absolute holiness, and human original sin, they can, and should, and sometimes do, encourage in their holders a self-suspicion and self-awareness.
There are, of course, good and bad Christians and good and bad secular humanists, and all can be "hypocritical" in failing to live up to their professed ideals, but on the whole I do think that Christians are more in touch with reality.
Counterpoint:
Things I have been told by Christians but never by any form of atheist or secular humanist.
- I deserve to be tortured eternally.
- If I don't change I will be tortured eternally and it is good that this happens
- Suffering is good for me.
- The speaker is right because the eternal and supreme being says so
- Don't interfere. This is God's will
- That couple is unnatural and their love is an abomination (complete with comparisons to paedophilia and bestiality)
- That the overwhelming majority of scientists in the world are in a conspiracy and this tendentious reading of the Bible is right
- God wouldn't let me be wrong
And this is without getting into things I've heard online - such as The Second Work of Grace/Entire Sanctification by which some claim to be free of Original Sin. And also not counting the spewings of the Westboro Baptist Church.
An invisible skydaddy makes some Christians more humble. A perfect being backing them makes a lot of Christians into arrogant jackasses, sure that their beliefs are right. For all his self-righteousness, if Dawkins was a Christian rather than an atheist he'd be known as a moderate.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Things I have been told by Christians but never by any form of atheist or secular humanist.
*That couple is unnatural and their love is an abomination (complete with comparisons to paedophilia and bestiality)
Are you saying you don't believe there are any homophobic atheists, or that you've never met one, or that you don't know, but you've never met an atheist who has expressed homophobic sentiment?
I've known some homophobes (including outspoken ones) who were not remotely "religious". I don't honestly recall whether they would have claimed any belief. It's possible - sadly - that for some, homophobia alone is sufficient reason to align themselves with the Christian right, even if they don't have any other belief or faith practice.
But in the main, I'm saying that in my experience, there's plenty of faith-free hate ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carex
Shipmate
# 9643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I mean, do you find that atheists or humanists are less loving or merciful?
Not necessarily, but I do find them more self-righteous.
They are always banging on about their compassion and integrity.
...
There are, of course, good and bad Christians and good and bad secular humanists, and all can be "hypocritical" in failing to live up to their professed ideals, but on the whole I do think that Christians are more in touch with reality.
Clearly YMMV. Most of the secular humanists (for lack of a better term) that I know never talk about their "compassion and integrity", or compare themselves to others, or even bother spending their time discussing such things. They just get on with living their lives as best they can.
Of course, there are lots of people like that in the world, and you can't always group them into Christian / Atheist / Other without getting to know them better since they don't wear their beliefs on their sleeves. So our perceptions of the "other" group are based mostly on those who we see making noise, while we know that "our group" contains a lot of quieter and more reasonable types.
I certainly consider the atheists I know to be far more in touch with reality than the Christian groups that feature in the news most frequently.
While perhaps the majority of the people I know are atheists, none of them fit the common straw-man stereotypes of Atheists or Secular Humanists often encountered here on the Ship. In that sense the terms are quite similar to "Religous Right" or "Fundamentalist" (or even, as is becoming more common, "Christian") as a convenient way to associate a large group of people with the opinions and actions of a few in order to attack them all without making any effort to understand just what they actually believe.
Posts: 1425 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Coming a bit late to the party toad, in relation to que sais-je's line about atheists: quote:
Interestingly atheists don't seem to judge religious believers negatively.
there is a short article in Sociological Images entitled "Who dislikes Atheists?" The image actually rates like/dislike between several differing religious groups, including atheists.
It seems that atheists dislike Evangelical Christians almost as much as Evos dislike atheists (surprise!), but atheists do have a soft spot for Buddhists. The feelings of the atheists surveyed about most other groups on the chart are, roughly, "meh" - or, IOW, about 50-50.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Sorry, too late to edit "to add" rather than "toad"
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
It seems that atheists dislike Evangelical Christians almost as much as Evos dislike atheists (surprise!), but atheists do have a soft spot for Buddhists.
Buddhists have never shown much interest in Gods. We share their lack of interest.
I doubt if most of my friends (in the UK) understand the nuances of Christian subdivisions. There's Happy Clappy and there's Proper Church (and then there's Quakers - nice people but a bit too good).
Its good
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
(By the way, does anyone actually self-identify as a "secular humanist"? I'm used to that term being one mainly used by certain religious groups to attack people...)
Why yes. There's the
Secular Humanist Council
When I was going to a high school run by the Ethical Culture Society I do remember seeing a Secular Humanist magazine, but I don't know if that morphed into The Humanist.
In general, most of the groups self-describe as Humanist. It does seem to be a term the religious right now associates with devilry but it's been around a long time for people who want to self describe around their interest in ethical behavior rather than as their non relation with any god.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Robespierre?
Didn't like atheists. Or Roman Catholics. Or anyone other than deists.
Yes, you're right.
I tend to think of "the sea-green incorruptible" in political terms, as the personification of bourgeois authoritarianism (what Talmon called "totalitarian democracy"), but he got son culottes dans un noeud with the Enrages, and later Hebertistes, as much for their opposition to religion (such as Cult of Reason celebrated in Notre Dame) as for their economic demands.
[ 16. August 2014, 03:20: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
And also not counting the spewings of the Westboro Baptist Church.
To paraphrase Churchill, “never in the field of anti-religious polemic has so much been owed by so many (secularists) to so few (the Phelps family)”.
They are absolute gold – one is tempted to say a godsend.
Trouble is, they are so completely unrepresentative of Christianity in general or evangelicalism in particular, that citing them is like trotting out Enver Hoxha as typical of atheists.
It’s about time that some equivalent of Godwin’s Law was introduced to cover Westboro Baps.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Trouble is, they are so completely unrepresentative of Christianity in general or evangelicalism in particular, that citing them is like trotting out Enver Hoxha as typical of atheists.
I disagree. The only difference between them and a sizable percentage of Christians is the level to which they are willing to take the message.
I do not paint all Christians with the same brush, not even most. But to say the WBC were a complete anomaly is incorrect.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Trouble is, they are so completely unrepresentative of Christianity in general or evangelicalism in particular, that citing them is like trotting out Enver Hoxha as typical of atheists.
It’s about time that some equivalent of Godwin’s Law was introduced to cover Westboro Baps.
As a non-Christian I can't tell if the Westboro Baptist are not real Christians. My own touchstone on how you tell a Christian, real or non real, is that they claim that some other people are not real Christians.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
As a non-Christian I can't tell if the Westboro Baptist are not real Christians. My own touchstone on how you tell a Christian, real or non real, is that they claim that some other people are not real Christians.
I am not claiming that the WBC are not Christians - that is not my point.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
For most practical purposes the differences within Christian and humanist positions will outweigh the differences between them.
I think one difference in general is that secular humanism tends to base the value of human beings in characteristics that most belong to young able-bodied adults: autonomy, reason, self-determination. Christian ethics, all things being equal, will tend against seeing those traits as determining human value.
A Christian is more likely to regard abortion as problematic even though there is no explicitly non-secular reason to do so.
This.
And this,
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I see the difference as being one of limits. We all have limits to our ability to love and forgive. But Christianity holds out the possibility of being enabled by grace to achieve scandalously gratuitous levels of love and mercy.
The practical consequence of this is that a follower of Jesus doesn't have to be afraid of feeling foolish if her capacity to love and forgive is "taken advantage of".
And this,
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
My impression is that Christian ethics is usually opposed to consequentialism (such as utilitarianism). For example, in a recent post, mrWaters says of something, it would make perfect sense to me if I was a censequentialist ("the ends justify the means"). I don't believe that one that considers himself a christian can accept such a position.
This seems consistent with a lot I have read on SoF whereas a lot of secular ethics is, often explicitly, seeking the greatest good/utility/happiness (or least misery) for as many as possible.
And this,
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
What are the differences between Christian ethics and Secular Humanist ethics?
Christian ethics are what I try to live by. Secular Humanist ethics are what I think everyone should live by.
In practical terms three main differences would be:
Grace, forgiveness and heaven: Christian ethics say forgive as I want to be forgiven. That's a non-negotiable. I hope to share heaven with everyone who I have ever hurt or who has hurt me. My relationship with my enemies has to look forward to a future reconciliation with them, in this life and beyond the grave. Secular ethics are concerned for right relationships in this world alone.
Sins of thought: all sorts of wrong thinking is bad in Christian ethics - envy, resentment, despair, covetousness, lust ... not merely because it might influence behaviour but because I'm trying to be the sort of person who doesn't think like that. Secular ethics should reserve a private space inside other people's heads where they can think what the hell they like.
Sexual ethics: The principles are the same - commitment, consent, respect - but Christian ethics have a structure in which marriage, even an unhappy marriage, is qualitatively different from the most loving and commited cohabitation. Christian ethics can forbid fornication and adultery even in circumstances where secular ethics would see good grounds for making an exception.
.... seem to me to have merit of some sort.
I wonder if the issue is not necessarily of kind, but of degree. Do we forgive because it helps US let go of the past ( e.g. psychology) or is more than that. Is it about trying to "love your enemy".
The utilitarian argument is also strong. Some things just seem totally unacceptable regardless of the benefits to the greatest number of people.
Perhaps something to do with a stronger sense of the value of an individual life created by God?
So the loser, the infirm, the unloved, the enemy are still beloved of God so this changes things.
We love as we are loved. And as Errnoneous Monk says it's not about tit for tat, it's about going the extra mile for no good reason but that that's what Christians are called to do.
I dunno. It's a hard one because secular humanist ethics do seem to be based on Christian ones.
As for this,
quote:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
Both secular humanists and religious (more than just Christian) humanists share closely related beliefs on the treatment of others. The difference between the two is that humanists have only their personal conscience to keep their conduct whole; religious humanists rely on a rewards and punishment (heaven or hell) dictum to keep their conduct in line.
I don't agree. I don't love wastefully because I want to go to heaven. I love wastefully and try and love my enemy because God loves me the same and shows me the way in Christ.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Things I have been told by Christians but never by any form of atheist or secular humanist.
*That couple is unnatural and their love is an abomination (complete with comparisons to paedophilia and bestiality)
Are you saying you don't believe there are any homophobic atheists, or that you've never met one, or that you don't know, but you've never met an atheist who has expressed homophobic sentiment?
I've known some homophobes (including outspoken ones) who were not remotely "religious". I don't honestly recall whether they would have claimed any belief. It's possible - sadly - that for some, homophobia alone is sufficient reason to align themselves with the Christian right, even if they don't have any other belief or faith practice.
But in the main, I'm saying that in my experience, there's plenty of faith-free hate
I'm certainly not saying there aren't homophobic atheists. I'm saying that there is a specific degree of homophobic zeal that doesn't in my experience come from atheists.
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
And also not counting the spewings of the Westboro Baptist Church.
To paraphrase Churchill, “never in the field of anti-religious polemic has so much been owed by so many (secularists) to so few (the Phelps family)”.
They are absolute gold – one is tempted to say a godsend.
Trouble is, they are so completely unrepresentative of Christianity in general or evangelicalism in particular, that citing them is like trotting out Enver Hoxha as typical of atheists.
It’s about time that some equivalent of Godwin’s Law was introduced to cover Westboro Baps.
Never was so much owed by Christians to one small unrepresentative sample that's moving the Overton window. And being able to say that the group I was specifically not including aren't representative is a way of ducking the case.
Which teachings of the Westboro Baptist Church are out of line with mainstream conservative teachings? Sure they are much more open in saying things like "God hates fags" than the people who try to force reparative therapy on gay people. The latter is in practice more harmful to more people than that group of clowns.
And are you going to engage with my main point or is this a distraction?
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Trouble is, they are so completely unrepresentative of Christianity in general or evangelicalism in particular, that citing them is like trotting out Enver Hoxha as typical of atheists.
It’s about time that some equivalent of Godwin’s Law was introduced to cover Westboro Baps.
I see your Godwin's Law and raise with No true scotsman ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
As a non-Christian I can't tell if the Westboro Baptist are not real Christians. My own touchstone on how you tell a Christian, real or non real, is that they claim that some other people are not real Christians.
I am not claiming that the WBC are not Christians - that is not my point.
Your point is that they are such an embarrassing extreme of Christian that no one on the internet should talk about them because you don't like it.
Good luck with that.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
